guys pls

Take the personal needling out of the equation and discuss things productively or I'm not going to fool around with this any longer.

guys pls

Take the personal needling out of the equation and discuss things productively or I'm not going to fool around with this any longer.

I like you. You're patient and supportive of the topic at hand. Additionally, your homage to Sherlock Holmes is humorous and accurate, in the sense of an Internet forum.

As for this thread, I cannot say I have anything to add. I've read most of the comments and I do not have an original idea. Or have yet to offer anything that hasn't been said before.

@Odin if you don't mind me asking, what precise appointments would you point to as cases of nepotism?

<Snipped quote by Odin>
I'd like to see you try, if it means that you'll finally reply to my points.

Jesus christ.

<Snipped quote by Odin>
Here's what I posted:

My Replies [+]

Except [Moderators need more capacity to do things or otherwise a secondary co-admin with equal or slightly less powers should be appointed] does have to do with increasing moderator power, because the changes that would've done just that weren't implemented by Mahz.

Why do you think it's in the partially completed sector? The goal is ''Moderators need more capacity to do things or otherwise a secondary co-admin with equal or slightly less problems should be appointed''. You understand that right? That is the suggestion made 5 months ago? You could've read that yourself?

Okay, good. Then you'll also understand that this suggestion has been partially met but not completely and therefore they can be found in the partially completed sector, which is for you guessed it, partially completed things, and therefore your question is nonsense because nothing was wrong with what was written there to begin with?

Maybe you should just create [some sprites to make the forum more aesthetically pleasing], post a thread showcasing your effort, let the community share their opinions about it, then see what the staff does with it.

No.

If [community events] wasn't your suggestion, whose was it? Also, why didn't you tell them they can invite people to community events by posting threads about them in Off-Topic Discussion and Spam Forum, so those that can't access the chat can also participate?

For point 1; look it up yourself in the OP. The answer is right there. Yes, this can be found in OP.

If you want me to do my own research [about rules not being enforced] for once, maybe you should provide me with certain keywords to run through the chat logs, and I'll let you know what I find. Does that sound fair?

I would look for certain infractions that went unpunished so you can see them, but then that'd require me to access the discord. So, no, I can't, but you're free to ask around yourself.

I lost count after you started repeating yourself in various portions of your OP. Want to tally up the non-repetitive points for us?

I don't but feel free to do it yourself since the answer is there in the OP.

If [We should as a whole venture more into the introduction area and greet newcomers, ask them how they are, what kind of role plays they like, and generally make them feel like they're entering into a positive community] wasn't your suggestion, whose was it?

OP.

I'm asking for hard evidence [that moderators being too inactive is causing problems]. If someone else has provided some, please quote it, because I didn't see any when I read the rest of this thread.

Well, let's see, if moderators are too inactive, then people get away with things they shouldn't get away with. We can agree that's bad no? If there were no moderation all together that seems like a bad thing? What, you want scientific proof that if there are no moderators that are active or the moderators aren't active enough all together then that's bad? What the heck?

Don't the moderators already interact with the community, beyond providing answers to questions, responding to reports, and so on? How much interaction is required for community building to take place?

This is subjective, but if you are asking for my opinion, then moderators should be involved in community activities too such as RPGN or contests. Which they were, but no longer are.

I mean that specific moderators could be assigned to the forum, chat, or both. At present, all of them are assigned to both.

... okay and? That's a problem? You know Hank literally said in this thread that he's implementing chat mods? Assuming you know that since you read the thread like a well-informed poster, right?

Better is subjective, and it's my opinion that a better alternative hasn't been presented.

OK? Why?

Thank goodness Lady Amalthea created the Articles And Guides Index, which is stickied in the Articles And Guides subforum.

I've already told you that the subforum you're referring to needs to be boosted up in where it is on the page, so this isn't an end-all solution, it's a solution that someone else came up with on their own to combat issues that weren't or couldn't be dealt with by the moderators. The real solution should be much more official than it is.

I'd also like to think so. But, I'd also like to think that the police would always respond as quickly as possible to each and every emergency call, no matter how significant of a criminal record certain callers possess. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

.. I can't, you're just proving my point - you expect the police to react accordingly regardless of this persons' background. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't make it right.

You're the one claiming that the community is dissatisfied. Do less than 10 members get to speak on behalf of the entire community?

In my opinion yes, if the rest of the guild is satisfied with sitting in their roleplays and roleplaying and not offering their suggestions and opinions, yes, they do.

If you sent me death threats off-site, I'd call the police, which is the real world equivalent of the forum's staff. The staff wouldn't need to know about it, because it wouldn't be any of their business.

That's gonna do a lot for someone living across the ocean. The point here was/is that a lot of off-site drama went into the discord and no mind was paid to it even after one would report it for the sake of preventing drama.

Were you the one that tried [to make another version of RPGNews]? If so, did you contact the staff before you tried it?

How is that relevant? No I was not. It doesn't matter, because it got banned and nuked because the old news suddenly got pissy after being AWOL for 3 gorillion years.

So, are you going to make your own version [of the Contests], or offer ideas?

I'm not allowed to host official contests and non-official contests are unlikely to attract more attention than the official ones, so no, I'm not. Since you're suggesting, maybe you could do it. Have fun.

I already offered my ideas - for the 2 relevant moderators to get busy and make a contest.

Except plenty of things that they requested happened, which you pointed out in your OP.

... okay? This thread isn't an attack, it's a reminder of the list and me wondering why so little has happened in 5 months?

If my reply was so obvious, why didn't you tell the user that brought up your initial point about cliques that this is how the internet works?

Because my job wasn't to tell people they were wrong, my job was to compile a list of all relevant ideas and thoughts.

I'd be content with that. I define inactivity as absolutely no posting.

Then we differ from opinion.

Can you do me a solid and tell me whose suggestion [Changing decorum and communication tactics can be a fix to activity problems.] was?

No. Read the thread.

That's not a yes or no answer [to Would you prefer that the moderators be trigger-happy with their banning powers, and never let people appeal their bans?].

You are correct in stating that it is not a yes or no answer. I don't think a yes or no answer is required because that'd forego the context. Context is key.

Sure, try that, but don't be surprised when you get banned. They're not obligated to engage with the community beyond their Mahz-given responsibilities, and you've yet to define how much interaction is required on their part to encourage community building.

ok

@Odin if you don't mind me asking, what precise appointments would you point to as cases of nepotism?

First of all: any appointment of a new moderator is going to be influenced by a little bit of nepotism. Denying that is ridiculous. If you think that you were selected 100% for being a good moderator, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Whoever selects moderators (I imagine Hank + Mahz + the rest of the moderator team is allowed to pitch in) is naturally going to have a preference for people they like.

Whether that is because they just like them, or because they would fit well in the team, that is another matter, but ultimately nepotism is bound to play a role to a lesser degree. It's more problematic when it occurs in larger degrees. As far as I know we've not reached that point yet and I'd like to keep it that way (hence, I'm not really looking to have moderator elections).

Secondarily: appointments where nepotism played a larger role than expected/usual would probably be that of Ruby. It's not really a secret Hank and her get along and it didn't take too long for her to be re-appointed. Call me a cynic but I don't believe she was approved for re-entry just because she's, according to the rest, a good moderator. It definitely helped her case that a lot of the moderators know her and like her.

Your own reappointment also comes to mind although that event was far less publicized so I have even less of an idea how that all played out. If it was you returning and saying 'hey I got time again, make me mod again please' then clearly that's not the process it should've been. But, as usual, nothing was really said about it, so I'm not sure.

Besides that I am unaware of recent appointments as all the other members of the moderator team have been there for quite a while. But.. do note that you're inferring that I said there was nepotism involved in the current staff. I never said that. I said we should beware of that. There's a difference. The nepotism on Newguild is far less rampant than it used to be in my eyes and I want to keep it that way too.

The key point I was trying to make and that I am sure you'll agree with is that elections for moderator positions are ridiculous and stupid and invite nepotism.

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

First of all: any appointment of a new moderator is going to be influenced by a little bit of nepotism. Denying that is ridiculous. If you think that you were selected 100% for being a good moderator, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Whoever selects moderators (I imagine Hank + Mahz + the rest of the moderator team is allowed to pitch in) is naturally going to have a preference for people they like.

Whether that is because they just like them, or because they would fit well in the team, that is another matter, but ultimately nepotism is bound to play a role to a lesser degree. It's more problematic when it occurs in larger degrees. As far as I know we've not reached that point yet and I'd like to keep it that way (hence, I'm not really looking to have moderator elections).

Secondarily: appointments where nepotism played a larger role than expected/usual would probably be that of Ruby. It's not really a secret Hank and her get along and it didn't take too long for her to be re-appointed. Call me a cynic but I don't believe she was approved for re-entry just because she's, according to the rest, a good moderator. It definitely helped her case that a lot of the moderators know her and like her.

Your own reappointment also comes to mind although that event was far less publicized so I have even less of an idea how that all played out. If it was you returning and saying 'hey I got time again, make me mod again please' then clearly that's not the process it should've been. But, as usual, nothing was really said about it, so I'm not sure.

Besides that I am unaware of recent appointments as all the other members of the moderator team have been there for quite a while. But.. do note that you're inferring that I said there was nepotism involved in the current staff. I never said that. I said we should beware of that. There's a difference. The nepotism on Newguild is far less rampant than it used to be in my eyes and I want to keep it that way too.

The key point I was trying to make and that I am sure you'll agree with is that elections for moderator positions are ridiculous and stupid and invite nepotism.

Hank and I never interacted until I became a Mod the first time, and he was trying to annoy me.

We know OF each other, having seen each other around the Guild for so long, but we had little to no contact prior to that.

@Ruby I meant your re-appointment, as in, the time you came back. The 2nd time if you will. Unless you're saying you'd never spoken to him then?

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

First of all: any appointment of a new moderator is going to be influenced by a little bit of nepotism. Denying that is ridiculous. If you think that you were selected 100% for being a good moderator, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Whoever selects moderators (I imagine Hank + Mahz + the rest of the moderator team is allowed to pitch in) is naturally going to have a preference for people they like.

Whether that is because they just like them, or because they would fit well in the team, that is another matter, but ultimately nepotism is bound to play a role to a lesser degree. It's more problematic when it occurs in larger degrees. As far as I know we've not reached that point yet and I'd like to keep it that way (hence, I'm not really looking to have moderator elections).

Secondarily: appointments where nepotism played a larger role than expected/usual would probably be that of Ruby. It's not really a secret Hank and her get along and it didn't take too long for her to be re-appointed. Call me a cynic but I don't believe she was approved for re-entry just because she's, according to the rest, a good moderator. It definitely helped her case that a lot of the moderators know her and like her.

Your own reappointment also comes to mind although that event was far less publicized so I have even less of an idea how that all played out. If it was you returning and saying 'hey I got time again, make me mod again please' then clearly that's not the process it should've been. But, as usual, nothing was really said about it, so I'm not sure.

Besides that I am unaware of recent appointments as all the other members of the moderator team have been there for quite a while. But.. do note that you're inferring that I said there was nepotism involved in the current staff. I never said that. I said we should beware of that. There's a difference. The nepotism on Newguild is far less rampant than it used to be in my eyes and I want to keep it that way too.

The key point I was trying to make and that I am sure you'll agree with is that elections for moderator positions are ridiculous and stupid and invite nepotism.

Having reread the conversation, I did misinterpret it but I guess I will address the points raised nonetheless. This may seem like an argument of semantics but sometimes definitions are important; I personally consider nepotism to be promotion/selection in spite of ability; ergo the appointment of someone right for the role does not entail nepotism. Am I perhaps arrogant by suggesting that I am a good mod? perhaps, but that is built off the commentary of multiple people from different cliques.

Is the fact that I have previous experience with the mod team and a history of interaction a factor in my reappointment; absolutely. It's the same as a company rehiring someone who'd previosuly done a good job, they're hired off merit and the knowledge that they can perform with the team currently assembled.

The ruby reappointment I can't comment much on as it was during my period of well documented absence but my own I am happy to discuss beyond my personal issues. I'd put out an offer to resign from being a moderator around a year before my actual leaving because I recognised that i didn't have the same activity that I thought would be required from a mod. The feedback i received that there was no cap on mod numbers and I was free to continue because my opinion and perspective on issues was desired.

When I resigned was because I was cutting ties to focus on some central personal issues, when I resolved them I sent a message to Hank and made the point that the issues were resolved and that I was more free in terms of time. About two months later he contacted me and asked if i was still returning because he wanted my opinion for the defence of a genre thread/event. That is the circumstances of my return.

@Ruby I meant your re-appointment, as in, the time you came back. The 2nd time if you will. Unless you're saying you'd never spoken to him then?

Yeah, at that point, we'd had some casual conversations when he worked at a resort, but nothing Guild related. Our first Guild related chats were about an issue I had unrelated to him, and when I realized maybe it'd be good if I went back and helped site staff again. Hank didn't appoint me the second time, either; that was Mahz.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Having reread the conversation, I did misinterpret it but I guess I will address the points raised nonetheless. This may seem like an argument of semantics but sometimes definitions are important; I personally consider nepotism to be promotion/selection in spite of ability; ergo the appointment of someone right for the role does not entail nepotism. Am I perhaps arrogant by suggesting that I am a good mod? perhaps, but that is built off the commentary of multiple people from different cliques.

What constitutes a good mod and what not is, also, entirely subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but as Hank has previously stated, he prefers janitor-style mods and I myself prefer a different style of mods. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different preferences.

I think there are plenty of good candidates for moderator positions that, as far as I know, have never been considered, where as I do know some people that I personally think are probably one of the worst picks you could make have been considered. Perhaps for that reason I'll ask @Hank if he could run me/us through the process that you go through when you are being considered for moderator. Or perhaps one of the other mods could. I'm interested to see what the process is from start to finish. How do you get considered for the position all the way to how is the acceptance of a new moderator announced.

The idea I have is that at the moment it's entirely whimsical and based on nominations from other moderators. You should be aware that you're missing out on a lot of good candidates like @Nytem4re or others, who by now have lost either the backing or the desire to help at all.

Is the fact that I have previous experience with the mod team and a history of interaction a factor in my reappointment; absolutely. It's the same as a company rehiring someone who'd previosuly done a good job, they're hired off merit and the knowledge that they can perform with the team currently assembled.

The ruby reappointment I can't comment much on as it was during my period of well documented absence but my own I am happy to discuss beyond my personal issues. I'd put out an offer to resign from being a moderator around a year before my actual leaving because I recognised that i didn't have the same activity that I thought would be required from a mod. The feedback i received that there was no cap on mod numbers and I was free to continue because my opinion and perspective on issues was desired.

When I resigned was because I was cutting ties to focus on some central personal issues, when I resolved them I sent a message to Hank and made the point that the issues were resolved and that I was more free in terms of time. About two months later he contacted me and asked if i was still returning because he wanted my opinion for the defence of a genre thread/event. That is the circumstances of my return.

I don't and didn't mean to pry in your personal life - when you resigned I respected it because you'd shown that you were critiquing yourself as well and I liked that. When I named you here, I critiqued you for still not being as active as others. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, I can't tell as I am not omniscient. The reasons for that are irrelevant to me if I am not aware of them - this is why the suggestion of a moderator thread where mods can post status updates or other things is a good suggestion because it makes people aware that one given mod might be away for a few days - in this case I was unaware of the reasoning for you being gone and therefore could not make a weighted judgement. You're telling me now, yes, but if I'd known this prior, perhaps I would've understood why you were gone instead of having to judge that for myself.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Yeah, at that point, we'd had some casual conversations when he worked at a resort, but nothing Guild related. Our first Guild related chats were about an issue I had unrelated to him, and when I realized maybe it'd be good if I went back and helped site staff again. Hank didn't appoint me the second time, either; that was Mahz.

I thought it was Hank as I seemed to recall reading that somewhere, but in that case my apologies. You don't feel like your prior friendship with Mahz might've influenced the rather quick reappointment whatsoever? I do.

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

What constitutes a good mod and what not is, also, entirely subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but as Hank has previously stated, he prefers janitor-style mods and I myself prefer a different style of mods. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different preferences.

I think there are plenty of good candidates for moderator positions that, as far as I know, have never been considered, where as I do know some people that I personally think are probably one of the worst picks you could make have been considered. Perhaps for that reason I'll ask @Hank if he could run me/us through the process that you go through when you are being considered for moderator. Or perhaps one of the other mods could. I'm interested to see what the process is from start to finish. How do you get considered for the position all the way to how is the acceptance of a new moderator announced.

The idea I have is that at the moment it's entirely whimsical and based on nominations from other moderators. You should be aware that you're missing out on a lot of good candidates like @Nytem4re or others, who by now have lost either the backing or the desire to help at all.

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

I don't and didn't mean to pry in your personal life - when you resigned I respected it because you'd shown that you were critiquing yourself as well and I liked that. When I named you here, I critiqued you for still not being as active as others. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, I can't tell as I am not omniscient. The reasons for that are irrelevant to me if I am not aware of them - this is why the suggestion of a moderator thread where mods can post status updates or other things is a good suggestion because it makes people aware that one given mod might be away for a few days - in this case I was unaware of the reasoning for you being gone and therefore could not make a weighted judgement. You're telling me now, yes, but if I'd known this prior, perhaps I would've understood why you were gone instead of having to judge that for myself.

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

I thought it was Hank as I seemed to recall reading that somewhere, but in that case my apologies. You don't feel like your prior friendship with Mahz might've influenced the rather quick reappointment whatsoever? I do.

I get the point you're trying to make, but it just doesn't hold water: I wasn't friends with Mahz. He'd known of me for years, but he knew of me as someone that RPed, never got involved in drama (your group is the only big drama I've ever had to endure), and helped the Guild community in ways like contributing to RPGN, and being around during Guildfall.

My re-appointment was the only time I had spoken to him at any length. And I still wouldn't call he and I friends; Hank and Sherlock are closer to actual friends to him.

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

What constitutes a good mod and what not is, also, entirely subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but as Hank has previously stated, he prefers janitor-style mods and I myself prefer a different style of mods. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different preferences.

Yes I completely agree that quality is subject to a lack of objectivity, but my initial point remains is that who has ever registered me as a bad mod who should never return. As far as I am aware, it's no-one. Ergo an argument that my reappointment as a mod as being a sign of nepotism is most likely null and void and symbolistic of a failing of the system. If it's the second, please go ahead and tell me what I'm doing wrong, I welcome constructive criticism; the main criticismIi've received thus far was that I was too lenient.

I think there are plenty of good candidates for moderator positions that, as far as I know, have never been considered, where as I do know some people that I personally think are probably one of the worst picks you could make have been considered. Perhaps for that reason I'll ask @Hank if he could run me/us through the process that you go through when you are being considered for moderator. Or perhaps one of the other mods could. I'm interested to see what the process is from start to finish. How do you get considered for the position all the way to how is the acceptance of a new moderator announced.

The idea I have is that at the moment it's entirely whimsical and based on nominations from other moderators. You should be aware that you're missing out on a lot of good candidates like @Nytem4re or others, who by now have lost either the backing or the desire to help at all.
[/quote]

Who would you consider as bad mods considering I can only think of one nomination that I personally made in the past who hasn't made mod. The rest hasn't been direct naming as far as I am aware, so you're either accusing a mod directly or making speculative judgements. As for the consideration process, it is mostly based off the opinion of the current staff. To make something public that was previously private, I nominated Nutts as my successor because I believed he was right for the role and I stand by that nomination.

<Snipped quote by Kangaroo>

I don't and didn't mean to pry in your personal life - when you resigned I respected it because you'd shown that you were critiquing yourself as well and I liked that. When I named you here, I critiqued you for still not being as active as others. Perhaps it was a momentary thing, I can't tell as I am not omniscient. The reasons for that are irrelevant to me if I am not aware of them - this is why the suggestion of a moderator thread where mods can post status updates or other things is a good suggestion because it makes people aware that one given mod might be away for a few days - in this case I was unaware of the reasoning for you being gone and therefore could not make a weighted judgement. You're telling me now, yes, but if I'd known this prior, perhaps I would've understood why you were gone instead of having to judge that for myself.

I believe the main part of this is asking why I wasn't present on forums? as I said, I would be active on discord when needed but may have periods where I fall back to relying on push notifications.

<Snipped quote by Odin>
My re-appointment was the only time I had spoken to him at any length. And I still wouldn't call he and I friends; Hank and Sherlock are closer to actual friends to him.

You know, I don't think I've ever actually spoken with Mahz. I've replied to threads he's been in, but I don't think I've ever directly spoken to him.

I was appointed by Contra Fates, back in the day. Mahz had no hand in it.

Just some trivia.

Carry on.

.

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

You know, I don't think I've ever actually spoken with Mahz. I've replied to threads he's been in, but I don't think I've ever directly spoken to him.

I was appointed by Contra Fates, back in the day. Mahz had no hand in it.

Just some trivia.

Carry on.

Well there you go. The more I know...

@Ruby Fair enough - but the original point stands. I didn't intend to accuse of nepotism - that's what Kangaroo turned it into and in my mind you and perhaps his reappointment were the only two cases where I thought previous friendships had to do with it in part. Regardless, the original point was that elections are dumb because of nepotism, random drawings are dumb because you can't ensure quality, and whimsically nominating random people by the mods is dumb because you are missing out on candidates that would do really good but who have been demotivated by occurrences or just.. are not very visible or known.

An improvement can be made here and - god forbid me saying it - we might just have to look to Iwaku to see what they're doing because this is the one thing where I'd learn from them.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Yes I completely agree that quality is subject to a lack of objectivity, but my initial point remains is that who has ever registered me as a bad mod who should never return. As far as I am aware, it's no-one. Ergo an argument that my reappointment as a mod as being a sign of nepotism is most likely null and void and symbolistic of a failing of the system. If it's the second, please go ahead and tell me what I'm doing wrong, I welcome constructive criticism; the main criticismIi've received thus far was that I was too lenient.

I.. no, I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, I was raising the point that after you got reappointed you were still not as active as some as the others. You were inactive for 3 days when I wrote it, so I presumed you were just busy. It was never about good or bad mod. If you want constructive criticism then I'd say log in more often? Just because you're on discord doesn't mean there aren't users who might PM you because they don't know you're not on RPG as much. It's not that much effort to log in daily once, right, so I don't see the harm there.

Who would you consider as bad mods considering I can only think of one nomination that I personally made in the past who hasn't made mod. The rest hasn't been direct naming as far as I am aware, so you're either accusing a mod directly or making speculative judgements. As for the consideration process, it is mostly based off the opinion of the current staff. To make something public that was previously private, I nominated Nutts as my successor because I believed he was right for the role and I stand by that nomination.

Again, not really my point. I'll state it clearly so it cannot be misunderstood or misread;

If you do not have a process for moderatorship that includes some form of application, you are potentially missing out on moderator candidates that are perfect, because you are not allowing them to partake. By nominating people you are limiting yourself to people you know. By having one staff member i.e. Hank determine potential candidates and making a choice you're limiting yourself even further.

It's not about the current mod selection in this case, it's about the process of getting there. Like I said to Ruby, look at Iwaku - they have a process where you can apply with relevant information and then the staff decides who is good enough.

I believe the main part of this is asking why I wasn't present on forums? as I said, I would be active on discord when needed but may have periods where I fall back to relying on push notifications.

No, I'm saying if you'd informed people about your inactivity, that would've been better because I would've understood your situation instead of having to make assumptions.

Should you become a staff member, would you be alright with me attempting to engage with you in the manner that you've engaged with Ruby? If so, I'll be sure to publicly criticize you if you retain your ghost status, whenever you act in a condescending manner, and each time you insult me and my abilities. Not only that, I'll repeatedly question your capacity as a staff member, condemn you for not meeting my arbitrary definition of activeness, and constantly bring up lists of potential improvements that could be made with regards to the forum, chat, and staff. We'll see how quickly you respond to each of my reports.

This is one third of the issue here. If someone isn't considerate when they interact with others then others are unlikely to be considerate in return.

If you interact with a mod and display disregard for their social status, a lack of respect for their time and trample over all standards of common courtesy then don't be surprised when you end up banned.

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

This is one third of the issue here. If someone isn't considerate when they interact with others then others are unlikely to be considerate in return.

If you interact with a mod and display disregard for their social status, a lack of respect for their time and trample over all standards of common courtesy then don't be surprised when you end up banned.

The real joke here is that I still expect Ruby to do her job when working with me, and so far she has. In fact, she's usually quicker than anyone else, so Catchambers entire argument is irrelevant. In fact, it's the reason I didn't reply because the answer would be that I'd still reply as soon as I can because apparently, unlike Catchambers, I think when you're a moderator you should just do what you have to do. There are no exceptions to that.

Personal anecdotes about me and my behaviour towards Ruby won't really help either. As far as I am concerned, after me and Ruby spoke yesterday, it's behind us. Regardless, just saying 'hehehehe you said she did a bad job once!' isn't really a good argument is it.

More over I'm not surprised I was banned. In fact, I did that myself. I deserved it, I broke the rules, but in my mind I did it for a good reason. Telling random women you'll lick their belly buttons isn't exactly good behaviour and I was making sure to remind this person of that.

Unless, of course, you were referring to someone entirely different.

@Odin

The real joke here is that I still expect Ruby to do her job when working with me, and so far she has. In fact, she's usually quicker than anyone else

Right so I'm not here to kiss the butts of the mods or anything but this quote makes me wonder why you haven't tuned down the vitriol. I mean if you are an asshole to someone and they treat you fairly anyway maybe you should stop being an asshole.

Personal anecdotes about me and my behaviour towards Ruby won't really help either. As far as I am concerned, after me and Ruby spoke yesterday, it's behind us. Regardless, just saying 'hehehehe you said she did a bad job once!' isn't really a good argument is it.

How does this connect to me and my post? I assume you are responding to me here but if you aren't then heads up-- you forgot to tag them.

More over I'm not surprised I was banned. In fact, I did that myself. I deserved it, I broke the rules, but in my mind I did it for a good reason. Telling random women you'll lick their belly buttons isn't exactly good behavior and I was making sure to remind this person of that.

I heard you were banned from the Discord but I had no idea you were banned from the site. Regardless, my point wasn't about any specific instance in your past. It was about your behavior in regards to the mods and what you can realistically expect when you behave that way.

The bottom line is you are very abrasive and friction creates heat. Behaving as if you exist in a universe filled with robots only works if you are in a universe filled with robots.

.